Posted on 12/06/2024 7:05:50 AM PST by Homer_J_Simpson
Special Dispatch to the New-York Times.
WASHINGTON, Monday, Dec. 5.
The very latest intelligence from the theatre of war in Georgia and South Carolina, is brought by the Richmond papers of Saturday, the 3d inst., received here to-day. The tone of their talk grows more boastful than ever. No longer content with predicting that SHERMAN will have accomplished nothing, even if he should get out to the coast, they now brag that he never will reach the seaboard at all, or if he does, it will, we are told, be with a loss of half his army.
The following is the Examiner's editorial on the "Situation in Georgia," in its issue of Saturday, Dec. 3:
"All the news from Georgia is extremely encouraging. A few days ago, when the Yankees were reported to have reached Millen, there was reason to believe they would reach the coast easily, but the report was ill-founded. They were whipped before Millen, and the column of relief (FOSTER's, from Port Royal) has also been beaten completely. The aspect of affairs has been much changed. If SHERMAN gets through now, which is doubtful, he will do so with a loss of half his army."
These bombastic predictions will be taken for what they are worth. But the position in which the rebel dispatches show SHERMAN still to be, hardly justifies the hope that he will get through to the seaboard as soon as had been anticipated. It appears from the latest Southern advices that he has not taken Millen, which is about seventy miles from Savannah. The rebels allege that he met a repulse near Millen, but only a portion of his force could have been engaged. SHERMAN's main body, it appears, is still on the west bank of the Oconee,
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
First session: November 21, 2015. Last date to add: May 2025.
Reading: Self-assigned. Recommendations made and welcomed.
Posting history, in reverse order
https://www.freerepublic.com/tag/by:homerjsimpson/index?tab=articles
To add this class to or drop it from your schedule notify Admissions and Records (Attn: Homer_J_Simpson) by reply or freepmail.
Link to previous New York Times thread
https://freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/4282662/posts
The Georgia Campaign: Sherman’s Cavalry within Six Miles of [Savannah] – 2-3
The War in Tennessee: The Battle of Franklin – 3
From East Tennessee: Gen. Breckinridge’s Forces Falling Back – 3
From Newbern, N.C.: The Yellow Fever – 3
From North Carolina: Correspondence of the Associated Press – 3
Arrest of Navy-Yard Employes in Philadelphia – 3
From Washington: Meeting of Congress – 3-4
Thirty-Eighth Congress: Second Session – 4
From Sheridan’s Army: Interesting Ceremony at Sheridan Hospital – 4-5
Congress – 5
Editorial: The Only Real War Issue – 5
Editorial: The Objects of Sherman’s Invasion – 5-6
More Victims of Rebel Cruelty – 6
Carrier-Pigeons – 6
Female Students at Medical Colleges – 6
Editorial: The City Railroads – 6
Can I add a side trip for Sherman - stop by my neighborhood and take all the illegals and their noisy leaf blowing machines back to Mexico or even to the coast - don’t care!
One of the guys working for my gardener just started in front of my house, then went to the back, was too much so came back up front. Now have a reinforcement - the owner got out of his truck and will help - must have been napping. The leaves will be falling for 2-3 more months...you can’t get ahead of them.....just like we’ll never get ahead of the illegals.
The reporting from Confederate forces regarding Sherman Army reads like Baghdad Bob.
“I assure you that there are no american army forces within miles of Baghdad!”, as american armored vehicles pass across the TV screen behind him.
“The reporting from Confederate forces regarding Sherman Army reads like Baghdad Bob.”
Don’t be smug.
The United States army reported “turning the corner” more than a few times in Vietnam.
Gracious in peace . . . I'll give him that when it came to Southerners; but not native Americans.
And his tactics of making war on women and children - white and native American - places him in the category of a war criminal even at that time.
His casual reference to extermination is still chilling.
The US military won their war in Vietnam.
Democrats in Congress threw the win away in 1974, by refusing to support the South Vietnamese government on grounds that it was too corrupt for Americans' moral sensitivities.
This was the cause (1968) and effect (1975):
“And his tactics of making war on women and children - white and native American - places him in the category of a war criminal even at that time.”
Oh, shaddup. Moral relativist demagogue.
The first to attack women and children were the natives. For hundreds of years at that. They avoided attacking men due to the risks.
The attacks only stopped when the Americans did back to them what they’d been doing to whites for decades ...or centuries. It’s the only thing that worked.
Go cry to hollywood -which lies to you
That is an interesting comment.
My understanding is that moral relativism argues morality is not universal, but instead relative to cultural norms.
You seem to be involved in that when you write: “The attacks only stopped when the Americans did back to them what they'd been doing to whites for decades ...or centuries. It's the only thing that worked.”
I'd like to hear more about your Sherman-Chivington moral code.
“The US military won their war in Vietnam. Democrats in Congress threw the win away in 1974, by refusing to support the South Vietnamese government on grounds that it was too corrupt for Americans’ moral sensitivities.”
Your comment contains some truth, some tradition, and some error.
Feel free to point out any errors.
Your comment, “The US military won their war in Vietnam” contains some truth, some tradition, and some error.
U.S. fighting men did win all, or most, of the major battles so in that sense the U.S. Army did “win”; but at a cost that was not sustainable.
I contend, in hindsight, the U.S. Army lost the war when U.S. Army generals agreed to fight a land war in Asia for 14 years using tactics that played to the long-term advantage of insurgent forces and the North Vietnamese. The tit-for-tat fighting resulted in 50,000 U.S. dead and 300,000 wounded.
It should have been predicted by the Army that these casualty rates would not be supported by the public for 20 years. And it wasn't.
The traditional view is that the military is subservient to civilian authority; that is the rule.
The other rule, less mentioned, is that U.S. military leaders have an absolute responsibility to advocate effective war fighting strategy to civilian leaders and if civilian leaders pursue disastrous national policies top military brass have an obligation to resign and explain their concerns to the public.
I don't remember a lot of generals resigning because they opposed the policies of Kennedy, Johnson, or Nixon. Maybe there were some.
My, how times have changed.
Second, I think we agree on a lot here, but there's more to the story, and especially the role of majority Democrats in defeating the US war effort in Vietnam:
jeffersondem: "U.S. fighting men did win all, or most, of the major battles so in that sense the U.S. Army did “win”; but at a cost that was not sustainable.
I contend, in hindsight, the U.S. Army lost the war when U.S. Army generals agreed to fight a land war in Asia for 14 years using tactics that played to the long-term advantage of insurgent forces and the North Vietnamese.
The tit-for-tat fighting resulted in 50,000 U.S. dead and 300,000 wounded."
Let's start here: the Vietnam War lasted 20 years from 1955 to 1975, but 98% of US costs and casualties came in the 8 years from 1965 through 1972.
US Vietnam force levels peaked in 1968 at around 536,000.
From 1968 through 1975 North Vietnamese PAVN launched three major invasions of South Vietnam:
But in 1973, Democrats in Congress voted to halve the aid requested and, in 1974, to eliminate future aid.
The result was, in 1975 South Vietnam's Army was unable to withstand the weaker PAVN 1975 Spring Offensive.
jeffersondem: "It should have been predicted by the Army that these casualty rates would not be supported by the public for 20 years.
And it wasn't."
US KIA's rose from 2,000 in 1965, reached a peak of ~17,000 in 1968, and fell to 1,000 in 1972.
In the NVA's 1972 Spring Offensive, which the South Vietnamese won, US casualties were 300 KIA, ~1,500 wounded.
So, even in 1972, casualty rates were not a major issue.
And US casualties were fully addressed by Pres. Nixon in his 1973 Paris Peace Accord, by withdrawal of US combat troops from South Vietnam.
So, the Paris accord assumed no US combat troops, but continued US support of South Vietnam -- again: at roughly the dollar level of US aid to South Korea then, and to Ukraine today.
In round numbers of today's equivalents, the Vietnam war cost the US around $5 trillion over 20 years, but 98% of that during the last 10 years, from 1965 to 1975 = about $500 billion per year (which was also roughly the cost of the US 20 year-long War on Terror = $500 billion per year in today's equivalents).
The cost to maintain the South Vietnamese government was about $30 billion per year (in today's equivalents), however, in 1973 Democrats in Congress cut US aid in half and in 1974 they eliminated all aid to South Vietnam.
The result was: the South Vietnamese army, which had stood up against previous larger invasions, failed in the face of the smaller 1975 North Vietnamese Spring Offensive.
The US abandoned about $5 billion of equipment in Vietnam, in today's values that's around $100 billion worth.
jeffersondem: "The other rule, less mentioned, is that U.S. military leaders have an absolute responsibility to advocate effective war fighting strategy to civilian leaders and if civilian leaders pursue disastrous national policies top military brass have an obligation to resign and explain their concerns to the public."
That much is certainly true, but what's not true is that the US military lost its battles, or the war, in Vietnam.
Defeat in Vietnam, as in many other places, was accomplished by Democrats in Congress.
jeffersondem: "I don't remember a lot of generals resigning because they opposed the policies of Kennedy, Johnson, or Nixon. Maybe there were some."
Defeat in Vietnam was guaranteed by LBJ's 1964 campaign against Mr. Conservative Republican Sen. Barry Goldwater, when LBJ accused Goldwater of wanting to start a nuclear war, thus promising that he, Johnson, would not.
Therefore, Vietnam had to be fought with a constant eye towards not "provoking" the Soviets into nuking us!
This was the Cause, and the Result:
1964 LBJ's Daisy Girl Ad -- 1968 anti-war protests -- 1975 Fall of Saigon:
Saying American military generals don't lose wars, that only politicians can lose wars is a tradition based partly on not wanting to say anything negative about our fighting men.
I understand it; said the same thing myself in the past.
In recent years, however, the flagrant wokeness of U.S. military brass has shaken my confidence in their abilities and their devotion to American ideals as I understand them.
That General Milley is a good example of someone that could lose a war if he were to call an enemy and give them advance notice of an American military strike which he has reportedly said he would do.
(Milley is too young to have played a role in the U.S. defeat in Vietnam topic of this thread.)
Still, I believe that not only do politicians influence things like wars but that politicians themselves can be influenced by their reports - even by subservient military leaders that can't make a persuasive case for sound strategy or don't have the courage to try to make a case for sound strategy.
Just such happened in the costly, protracted Vietnam War. American military brass did not articulate a winning strategy, public support for the war was lost, and then politicians broke and ran.
Yes, much of the blame for the fiasco can be laid directly at the feet of the democrat party and their blood-lust for Richard Nixon's destruction - no doubt about that.
Add three million murdered Cambodians to the bill of the democrats too.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.